![](bg2.png)
situation from the perspective of the parent, teacher,
principal or student with a disability involves high
levels of communication skill and moral reasoning
that may extend beyond immediate or reactive
responses that can occur in school leadership
contexts (Kohlberg, 1973). The awareness that is
provoked in an online role play situation must also
include a critically reflective framework to support
an interrogation of personal values and beliefs and to
substantiate personal and professional changes in
behaviour that are related to the management of
contentious situations (Mezirow, 2000). The model
of collaborative problem solving described in this
paper has three distinct phases: reciprocity,
collaborative problem solving and critical reflection.
Each phase is described briefly in the next section
before the technical aspects of the role play are
explained.
2 A MODEL OF
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM
SOLVING
2.1 Reciprocity
Although there are numerous explanations of the
notions of reciprocity, this paper adopts Kohlberg’s
(1973) moral preference that reciprocity involves
seeing the world from the perspective of another. In
a more detailed exploration of reciprocity, Falk and
Fischbacher (2000) augment familiar psychological
interpretations to propose that reciprocity cannot
only be determined by pure outcome related
consequences such as ‘kind actions will be met with
kind responses’. Instead they claimed the underlying
assumptions or ‘intent’ that surround the action will
predetermine the outcome to some extent. People
will shape their response to an action according to
the motives attributed to others. In a school context
where a student with Aspergers has been suspended,
teachers may respond in a limited, stereotypical or
rule based way if they are not able to understand the
motives of the student, parents or other stakeholders
as they collaborate or contrive various solutions to
the situation. Yet, understanding how others
experience an event, particularly one that may be
emotive or volatile, is a difficult and complex
sensitivity to teach, and even more so, in an online
medium. The online role play, as it was managed in
this study, provided the expectation and information
required for participants to experience the
complexities of a contentious situation from diverse
perspectives. As the role play progressed,
contentions arose that reflected real life experiences
that emerged from a range of sources not the least of
which were personality, pride, power, ambition,
love, distrust, finances, obligation, care, confusion,
rights, loyalty and so on. Participants were asked to
identify and understand the motivations for the
concerns exhibited in the role play and to propose
approaches that may resolve the problems identified.
2.2 Collaborative Problem Solving
The online role play then provided a situation where
the participants could implement an inquiry
approach into the complex dimensions of the
problem. They were asked to identify the issues
involved in the role play and investigate various
approaches to resolve the issues. Participants
accessed the literature to research policy, theory,
praxis and other influences relevant to the context.
As in all complex situations, the identified issues are
also influenced by emotions, goals, ambitions, skills
and abilities of all stakeholders. Habermas (1999)
explains how collaboration is a practice that is rarely
perfect but that each iteration or discussion will
expand common ground and inform participants of
shared expectations or otherwise. Fowler (2008)
describes how the process of rhetorical community
learning draws out the voices of the marginalized as
groups of people struggle to understand the social
ethic involved in the contentious situation. She
claims that differences can be transformed rather
than erased or contradicted when there is a
commitment to understanding the perspectives of
everyone involved. The online role play provides a
structured learning environment where an exchange
of differences can progress in a supportive and
informed way so that contentions may be argued
safely and possibly more creative options
considered. To facilitate a supportive and considered
response the participants in the role play needed
three spaces: one, a private asynchronous space to
discuss and reflect on the progress of events; two,
the public site of action where the role play took
place (asynchronous); and finally a debriefing
synchronous space in a virtual classroom on
Elluminate. The construction of these spaces will be
considered later in the paper.
2.3 Critical Reflection
The critical reflection phase of the online role play
had three main functions. In the first place it was
most important to debrief the participants of the
responsibilities, consequences and assumptions of
their roles. Although one aim of the role play was to
RECIPROCITY,THERASCALOFRESOLUTION-CollaborativeProblemSolvinginanOnlineRolePlay
253